Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Let's call a troll a troll

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 3 months ago

User Journal 125

We start here, where d_r said, emphasis mine:

Yet you don't seem to care for the Muslims much (as evidenced by, amongst other things, your repeated reminders for us of the scary middle name of the POTUS).

To which I reply:

We start here, where d_r said, emphasis mine:

Yet you don't seem to care for the Muslims much (as evidenced by, amongst other things, your repeated reminders for us of the scary middle name of the POTUS).

To which I reply:

This is a bald-faced lie, but I know you well enough now to account this as a straightforward troll. I defy you to show a single instance on the entire Internet where I personally have drawn a single derogatory conclusion based upon any portion of the President's name. A single one.

To which the response is:

In what way is it a lie? You just - again - told the Muslims that you believe they are wrong. You use the president's middle initial for what reason?

Now, I understand that the game here is for the liar to make an outrageous claim (previous examples included saying that I had called for violent removal of the President, or that I had plagiarized a website) and then continue to pick away until I lose patience with the idiocy on his end. A few rebuttals:

  1. FDR, LBJ, BHO, WTF?
  2. It's 1/26 of the alphabet. Dude, are you really into policing at that level? Can't we all pitch in and get you a life?
  3. Are you trying to contend that the Roman alphabet, itself, is the source of bigotry? While such would be outlandish, I am forced to admit that it's in keeping with your degenerate approach to argumentation.

I guess the only real regret I can muster is having ever read d_r in any serious light.

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Indeed (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46914939)

He appears to be practicing rhetorical skills. When all else fails he'll just shift the goalposts. If you engage the new topic he'll shift again until he finds something you cannot rebut, while pretending that was his position all along. If you stop to point out what he is doing, he's still managed to shift the topic.

Re:Indeed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46914987)

The crucial point is to manage the amount of time wasted. I have to confess I've had my fun contending with d_r. As long as we're all consenting adults. . .

Re:Indeed (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46916505)

When all else fails he'll just shift the goalposts.

There were no goalposts shifted. Smitty switched from using his ridiculous hashtag to describe Obama to using his oh-so-not-clever TLA instead. I will also point out that Smitty has done this midstream before as well and similarly whined when I pointed out what he was doing.

I would have been happy to stick to the original topic of discussion. I was pointing out in the context of discussing religion - and the disproportional representation of the same in our country - that Smitty has on many occasions tried to rile up islamophobia against the president by reminding people of his scary, scary, middle name. There is no logical reason to call Obama "BHO", and only people who are interested in trying to agitate followers of the "closet muslim" conspiracy theory (or people who are themselves followers of it) do so.

Re:Indeed (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46916721)

"There is no logical reason to call Obama "BHO""

Sure there is, those are his initials. It's a fairly common way of referring to people, Presidents included. Many Presidents are more commonly referred to by initialisms than their full name. Smitty mentioned FDR and LBJ, and who could forget JFK? For some odd reason I never hear William Jefferson Clinton referred to as WJC or Ronald Wilson Reagan called RWR, but I have certainly heard people use initialism to distinguish the two Bushes - GHWB vs GWB.

All in all it seems unremarkable and an odd thing for you to fixate on. I recall his predecessor was commonly referred to as 'Shrub' which is far less flattering if that is what you are worried about.

"only people who are interested in trying to agitate followers of the "closet muslim" conspiracy theory (or people who are themselves followers of it) do so."

Oh.

You sound more than a little like a conspiracy theorists yourself in asserting that is the only possible reason to use an initialism.

Re:Indeed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46917471)

d_r is a troll.

Re:Indeed (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46917855)

Many Presidents are more commonly referred to by initialisms than their full name. Smitty mentioned FDR and LBJ, and who could forget JFK?

What do those presidents all have in common? They were all presidents who were not the first with that name to serve in the white house - or in the case of JFK, not the first of the family name to run. You cannot say the same of Obama. Basically, "President Roosevelt" is not a unique name for a president as there have been more than one. However "President Obama" is, as there has been only one.

For some odd reason I never hear William Jefferson Clinton referred to as WJC or Ronald Wilson Reagan called RWR, but I have certainly heard people use initialism to distinguish the two Bushes - GHWB vs GWB.

It is for the reason I just gave. While some conservatives like to try to make political hay from Bill Clinton having changed his name earlier in life (and would opt for a different TLA for him) the fact remains that they are both the only ones of their last names to run for or serve as president thus far.

All in all it seems unremarkable and an odd thing for you to fixate on.

Fixate? Not really. When smitty uses the TLA I point out his arbitrary use of it. This time because he was apparently more bored than usual with seeing his own lack of argument disintegrate he decided to make a JE out of my response. Go ahead, ask him why he alternates between his other - much longer - nicknames for the president as this TLA. He wouldn't answer that question when i asked it and as much as he respects you I doubt he would answer it for you either.

"only people who are interested in trying to agitate followers of the "closet muslim" conspiracy theory (or people who are themselves followers of it) do so."

You sound more than a little like a conspiracy theorists yourself in asserting that is the only possible reason to use an initialism.

See above. Smitty arbitrarily flips between different names for Obama and does not have a moral footing for using the TLA as a way to spare keystrokes. He also has a potential claim to being the propagator of the largest list of active anti-Obama conspiracy theories anywhere. Put the two together.

Re:Indeed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46923633)

You're just trolling, but your mental gymnastics in the effort to justify your troll as some kind of serious argument are, it must be said, a hoot.

Re:Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46935759)

> reminding people of his scary, scary, middle name

It is, in fact, scary. The man's middle name is "HUSSEIN" for fucks sake. And his other two names don't exactly give me a hankering for apple pie, if you gnome sane.

Fact of the matter is, this guy is the antithesis of everything that has made the country great. If our country had been run on his principles in its founding or during it's formative years, the USA would be a shit hole like most of the other countries run by the likes of BHO.

But BHO is doing a fine job of catching up to the other shitholes around the world.

Your distractions are not amusing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46916459)

FDR,

He was the second president with the last name Roosevelt

LBJ,

He was the second president with the last name Johnson

BHO,

He is the only president to date with the last name Obama

WTF?

Indeed why are you comparing them?

It's 1/26 of the alphabet.

Yes but you include the letter H to remind us that his middle name is Hussein. And we all know that name is scary enough to warrant invading a sovereign nation on its own.

Are you trying to contend that the Roman alphabet, itself, is the source of bigotry?

No. I am just pointing out that you and many of your like-minded brethren use the initials of Obama's name to incite fear. With you, it is even more transparent considering you made up one of the most ridiculous hashtags in the history of hashtags, and then switch to this "to save keystrokes". That makes as much sense as replacing a bicycle with a Ferrari F70 [wikipedia.org] to save on gas.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46917477)

(a) what I say is true
(b) truth is not a distraction
(c) you don't often seem to handle the truth

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46917805)

A very strange way to walk away from your lack of logic, there. Declaring victory when you have been shown to be failing to incite a riot does not make one victorious. The matter here - as you pointed out in this very JE - is your selective application of the president's middle initial. You have failed to provide any reasonable explanation for why you use it at select times other than to stir up more fear and anger.

If you at least used it consistently - rather than arbitrarily switching behind the unnecessary TLA and your silly nicknames that are vastly longer than his own name - you could make an argument for your use of it. Instead it just overflows with evidence of you trying to remind people to be afraid.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (0)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46919561)

"silly nicknames that are vastly longer than his own name"

My silly nickname for him is just his name. Pronounced with an Aussie accent. It's charming, really.

Is there a particular reason why the ancient American pastime of making up silly nicknames for the President is objectionable to you?

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46919747)

"silly nicknames that are vastly longer than his own name"

Is there a particular reason why the ancient American pastime of making up silly nicknames for the President is objectionable to you?

How many silly nicknames do you make up for one sitting president? How many of them are intentionally chosen to stir up anger against that sitting president? When people called George W Bush "W", "Dubya", "GWB", or "Bush Jr", none of those were chosen to try to get people angry and rallying for impeachment. Furthermore none of them were chosen based on faulty assumptions of association with things that make people mad.

By contrast, Smitty's silly hashtag for Obama is used to try to draw attention to a conspiracy theory that as best I can tell only Smitty views as credible. The "clown" bit contradicts Smitty's claims of Obama having infinite power over the lives of every living thing in the universe. The TLA is used to get people to think of Obama as being related to Muslim dictators who we have previously used as justification for invading sovereign nations that had no ability to harm our country directly. And those are just the three nicknames that has used the most often in the past few weeks.

So this is not really in line with any "ancient American pastime", at least not one that was initiated in jest or solely for amusement.

And is there a particular reason why you refuse to use the quote tag or slashdot html formatting here?

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (0)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46919929)

To the contrary, "shrub" and "Bush the lesser" were intentionally demeaning nicknames used for a President that many of us did indeed want to impeach. I saw a lot of numerological expositions showing his name added up to 666 as well - I have yet to see anyone do that with Obama. Even if you are correct as to why Smitty likes to call him 'BHO' it's hardly any worse than the treatment of GWB.

"And is there a particular reason why you refuse to use the quote tag or slashdot html formatting here?"

I find it silly to have to add markup to a short text post with no special content. If I have a good reason to want to markup the whole post (most often to make a link, or occasionally a list) then fine, I will do it, but normally there is absolutely no reason whatsoever I should need to tag it all up because it's nothing but text.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46923641)

Be careful, or d_r is going to use his Research Powers to find raaaaacism in your markup choices. :-)

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46924171)

I wouldnt mind so much if it came out funny.

Frankly I find most racism discussions mind-numbingly boring at this point.

But Dave Chapelle [liveleak.com] is still hilarious.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46924323)

That is some primo ganja right there.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46925261)

Dave Chapelle man, comedy genius. If you think about that sketch there are some really deep messages in it, but instead of hitting people over the head with them, he builds a sketch out of it and makes the audience laugh so hard it will stick in their head for the rest of their lives.

Trevor Noah [youtube.com] does the same sort of thing, with a very different style of course.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46926201)

The experience growing up sucked, but one must credit his making his career path of the experience.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46926223)

And then the climax. Recalls throwing on "Dr. Strangelove" for my German wife. I'd forgotten all the "heiling" at the end. You just don't do Adolf gags around Germans. They're never in good taste.
Surprisingly, she liked it.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46928963)

Well he certainly seems to have made the most of his upbringing. He is eerily good with language. He did a better Aussie his first night on the continent than I can do after living there for 2 years. And did you hear his Spanish?

Then the climax. The Schwarzehitler. He should pass out 'napkins' before he tells that one.

"You just don't do Adolf gags around Germans. They're never in good taste."

I know what you mean. At the same time I subscribe to the notion that the most important role of comedy is to circumvent such rules. If you break everyone elses taboos for a laugh but not mine, that's what's really insulting. You think I cant take it? You think my ego is that weak? I cant laugh at myself? I cant take a joke?

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46935675)

Strong concur. Comedy should have a pruning effect on beliefs and relationships, helping them flourish.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46936105)

... and now back to our regularly scheduled racist baiting! I was worried you weren't feeling well as you hadn't accused me of that in some time.

Just to be 'perfectly clear' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46937611)

"find raaaaacism" != "racist baiting"
To say that anyone could find anything racist in a markup language is (I hope) clearly absurd. To the extent you're playing along with the absurdity: golf clap.
Probably shouldn't have to be that pedantic about matters, but you're easily the most caustic troll I know. So, yes, I do.

Re:Just to be 'perfectly clear' (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46938011)

I will show you a place where you have been consistent, smitty.

You have been consistent in your claiming of victimization at the hands of anyone who is less conservative than yourself. You have been consistent in your quest to get me (and likely others as well) to call you a racist. You have been consistent in your desperate attempt to claim that anyone who does not vote at least as conservative as the GOP line is somehow an Obama apologist / communist / Islamist / hater of America.

Re:Just to be 'perfectly clear' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46944255)

You have been consistent in your quest to get me (and likely others as well) to call you a racist.

Maybe if your real name is. . .Charlie Crist [hotair.com] .

Re:Just to be 'perfectly clear' (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46945873)

Smitty from not-very-long-ago would have realized that comment does not in any meaningful way address the comment that it quoted.

Re:Just to be 'perfectly clear' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46946963)

The Socratic method can hurt, but do try to connect the dots here. You and Charlie Crist are both strawmanning in a big way.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46936071)

To the contrary, "shrub" and "Bush the lesser" were intentionally demeaning nicknames used for a President that many of us did indeed want to impeach.

Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief".

I saw a lot of numerological expositions showing his name added up to 666 as well - I have yet to see anyone do that with Obama.

How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith.

Even if you are correct as to why Smitty likes to call him 'BHO' it's hardly any worse than the treatment of GWB.

We were only allowed to call for the impeachment of GWB for about 7 months. After that it was to the suggesting it could win you a one-way ticket to southern Cuba.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46936163)

"Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief"."

And on what grounds could he have been impeached prior to that 11 September?

"How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith."

I am afraid I lack context to make a judgement on that. I know one of my favorite Professors back in the day was actually a godless commie bastard and I told him that frequently, so it doesnt sound so bad to me.

"We were only allowed to call for the impeachment of GWB for about 7 months. After that it was to the suggesting it could win you a one-way ticket to southern Cuba."

Well I was doing it and I have not been rendered or droned yet.

Which is not to make light of the threat, one even more real and current today under the rule of O'Bomber I might point out. But for the moment there are still some shreds of the American system left functioning, pardon me if I think they are important enough to incur some personal risk to defend while they still exist.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46936265)

"Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief"."

And on what grounds could he have been impeached prior to that 11 September?

The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.

"How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith."

I am afraid I lack context to make a judgement on that. I know one of my favorite Professors back in the day was actually a godless commie bastard and I told him that frequently, so it doesnt sound so bad to me.

We could evaluate that term word-for-word:

  • Godless - Obama attends church so this makes no sense
  • Commie - Obama is, beyond any remote shadow of a doubt, 100% not a commie
  • Bastard - Obama was, actually, born to unwed parents. So if you want to use that definition of bastard, then this is true.

In other words, at least 1 of the three is accurate, the other 2 are utter bullshit.

"We were only allowed to call for the impeachment of GWB for about 7 months. After that it was to the suggesting it could win you a one-way ticket to southern Cuba."

Well I was doing it and I have not been rendered or droned yet.

There was a long list of elected senators and representatives who were (at the least) called un-American in congress for criticizing Bush, or (even worse) were threatened with being censured for doing that. That has not, to the best of my knowledge, happened even once under Obama - where calling him ridiculous names on the floor is pretty well sport.

But for the moment there are still some shreds of the American system left functioning, pardon me if I think they are important enough to incur some personal risk to defend while they still exist.

So then are you doing something more than just high-fiving conservatives on slashdot?

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46936291)

"The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama."

In that case it should be very easy for you to name one.

Please try to make it one of, if not the, strongest you can come up with. Just to save time.

"Godless - Obama attends church so this makes no sense"

What on earth does attending church have to do with G_d?

"So then are you doing something more than just high-fiving conservatives on slashdot?"

I've been consciously trying to save the Republic since '88. Not going to claim to be anything special, but I can say that if half the population did half as much as I did we would have won in '88 and a lot of misery, suffering, and death would have been avoided.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 3 months ago | (#46950775)

1988?

I was 13, so don't really remember that one -- but Bush ran away with the Nomination. Were you a Buchanan guy?

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46951669)

Paul/Marrou [wikipedia.org] actually.

I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46937659)

The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.

Given the overall lust for power of anyone cruising at federal government altitude, they'd have impeached Bush if they had any solid basis for doing so.
You seriously think that St. Albert of Gore would've held back on iota, after being denied the chance to re-write election rules in Florida? Really? Al would've hanged Bush's honor from a tree in Chad, if he could. (SWIDT?)
It's easy enough to argue that Bush was another dot in our national arc of failure, along with Obama. Take the TSA. To the Mariana Trench. But don't expect me to believe that the Democrats would've hesitated an eyeblink to impeach him, as early as taking Congress in 2006, if there was sufficient evidence. If politics is blood sport, then expect no mercy.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46939043)

The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.

Given the overall lust for power of anyone cruising at federal government altitude, they'd have impeached Bush if they had any solid basis for doing so.

They passed on it out of the baseless optimism that not even someone as incompetent as Bush, paired with someone as cold-hearted as Cheney, could ruin the economy that was developed in the 90s. Had they known how wrong their hopes were, they would have gone ahead with impeaching Bush in February 2001.

But don't expect me to believe that the Democrats would've hesitated an eyeblink to impeach him, as early as taking Congress in 2006

The Democrats could not impeach Bush in 2006, as they had no spine with which to do it. Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists!!!!!" or "sit down, you un-American scum!!!!". The Democrats were unwilling to respond to such accusations and gave up everything they aspired to any time they came up.

If politics is blood sport, then expect no mercy.

It isn't about mercy, it's about cowardice. While the GOP breeds merciless types, the Democrats welcome cowards with open arms. See every single bill signed into law by Obama as an example.

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46944301)

Hilarious! "Baseless optimism"

Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists!!!!!" or "sit down, you un-American scum!!!!". The Democrats were unwilling to respond to such accusations and gave up everything they aspired to any time they came up.

Did. They. Have. The. Grounds. Or. Did. They. Not. Have. The. Grounds. For. Impeachment?

It isn't about mercy, it's about cowardice.

Utter dreck. If they were cowardly, they would not have rammed through ObamaCare on a party-line vote.
Dude, I was going to recommend a career in standup for you, but now I'm thinking you're better off on Slashdot with your pathetic false-accusation gig.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46945917)

Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists!!!!!" or "sit down, you un-American scum!!!!". The Democrats were unwilling to respond to such accusations and gave up everything they aspired to any time they came up.

Did. They. Have. The. Grounds. Or. Did. They. Not. Have. The. Grounds. For. Impeachment?

They had at least as much ground for impeachment as are found in any of the conspiracy theories that you dedicate so much time and energy to championing. They just lacked the stones to actually push any of them.

It isn't about mercy, it's about cowardice.

Utter dreck. If they were cowardly, they would not have rammed through ObamaCare on a party-line vote.

Don't be stupid on this one. Every single "alternative to obamacare" that you have excitedly posted here on slashdot has been 90% carbon copied from the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, with a few extra bits thrown in to make the law even more insanely profitable for the industry that own both parties. There was nothing "rammed through". Your guys were allowed to vote against it only once their owners realized that they had enough votes for it by forcing all the democrats to vote for it (even though it was based on what you already showed was written by the conservative heritage foundation).

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46946975)

Don't be stupid on this one. Every single "alternative to obamacare" that you have excitedly posted here on slashdot has been 90% carbon copied from the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, with a few extra bits thrown in to make the law even more insanely profitable for the industry that own both parties. There was nothing "rammed through". Your guys were allowed to vote against it only once their owners realized that they had enough votes for it by forcing all the democrats to vote for it (even though it was based on what you already showed was written by the conservative heritage foundation).

I was at the Kill the Bill protest. It was completely rammed through. Nancy wanted to "deem" the Affordable Care Act passed, and then didn't want a proper vote for which Representatives would be personally accountable for what they did. You're completely ignorant on this one, and I recommend you cease soiling yourself here. Unless you're really into that sort of thing. George Will recently reviewed some of the parliamentary skullduggery [washingtonpost.com] surrounding this one, if you're inclined.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46947699)

I was at the Kill the Bill protest.

And what is that worth? Nothing. What are you going to replace it with? The same crap that's already in the bill. Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.

It was completely rammed through.

I know you love to reach in to the Official GOP Verbage Bin to describe processes that have outcomes that are less than 200% favorable for your party, but think about this for a minute in a logical way. Every proposal that has come from the GOP to date that has actually included replacement actions has just had copies of the bill rewritten in someone else's hand. Your party has not proposed anything different and seeks just to have their own name on the same pile.

You're completely ignorant on this one, and I recommend you cease soiling yourself here.

That's a silly statement even by your own recent standards. I urge you to go back to the proposals that you have linked to from here to date as "replacements" for the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. Not a single one of them departed significantly from this. You even managed to find an article at the Heritage Foundation where they admitted that this bill reflects what they wanted from "reform".

What you haven't found is a conservative with a plan that deviates substantially from this that they actually want to propose as a bill.

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46955293)

Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.

Genuinely unsure of this assertion, sir. As with Trey Gowdy's Benghazi commission, the secret to improvement is sweeping aside the no-talent rodeo clowns who've jacked things up thus far, and their debris with them.

Your party has not proposed anything different and seeks just to have their own name on the same pile.

This is true only in your rhetorical universe, sir.

You even managed to find an article at the Heritage Foundation where they admitted that this bill reflects what they wanted from "reform".

Your free-range distortions really couldn't debase your non-existent validity any further, so, soil yourself!

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46955929)

Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.

Genuinely unsure of this assertion, sir.

Smitty you have shared links to a variety of "obamacare alternatives". The only ones you have shared that were actually from anyone in an elected position had no significant differences from the current law.

the secret to improvement is sweeping aside the no-talent rodeo clowns who've jacked things up thus far

... and right back to 100% fail you go.

Your party has not proposed anything different and seeks just to have their own name on the same pile.

This is true only in your rhetorical universe, sir.

I happen to live in the universe that this planet resides in. You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.

You even managed to find an article at the Heritage Foundation where they admitted that this bill reflects what they wanted from "reform".

...

Go back to your JE where you brought up the Heritage Foundation's admission of wanting a mandate. I can't find it in your JE history [slashdot.org] , in part thanks to your clever naming system where your titles don't reflect the content. Find the entry, find my comments, find my quote from the story you linked to and you'll find the Heritage Foundation admitting to wanting a mandate. In the process they essentially admit to wanting everything else that was in the bill - except for any chance of it being successful if it is associated with someone who isn't from the GOP.

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46957373)

You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.

No amount of mental gymnastics on your part, or anyone else's, can make federal over-reach into a good idea. Which is where the GOP is likely going to destroy itself. No amount of polish can un-turd the Progressive Project.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46959879)

You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.

No amount of mental gymnastics on your part, or anyone else's, can make federal over-reach into a good idea.

And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.

Hell, you even demonstrated - repeatedly - that is is the same. damn. thing.

Which is where the GOP is likely going to destroy itself.

No, the GOP is far more likely to destroy themselves with the hypocrisy of the massive wasteful spending involved in never ending conspiracy theory investigations - or at least, they would if you were at the helm. They couldn't destroy themselves by repealing the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, putting a new name on it (hey, Ryan-Care sounds great!), and then re-releasing it as such. There are too many people like yourself who are deeply in love with the party to be able to destroy it by that.

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46963537)

And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.

What a jest! A dude at Heritage said something decades ago, and you assert that I (a) knew it at the time and (b) agreed with it.
No, Progressivism, from either the Republican or Democrat orifice, draws vacuum.

the hypocrisy of the massive wasteful spending involved in never ending conspiracy theory investigations

Coming soon: dead website!

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46964397)

I love how you discard well over half the post and reply only to the parts that you think you can spin in your favor. Case in point...

And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.

What a jest! A dude at Heritage said something decades ago, and you assert that I (a) knew it at the time and (b) agreed with it.

When you linked to it in a JE, you praised it. That is, until I pointed out that it was indeed calling for a mandate, after which you pretended that such a thing was not said. Furthermore, it was not said "decades ago"; at most it was said not long after RomneyCare was passed. Much like so many other conservatives, you thought RomneyCare was a brilliant idea; and you endorsed scaling it to the federal level until you realized it could potentially make Obama look not-as-bad-as-Satan-himself if it worked out.

No, Progressivism, from either the Republican or Democrat orifice, draws vacuum.

Indeed both sides have been progressively more conservative over the past several decades.

the hypocrisy of the massive wasteful spending involved in never ending conspiracy theory investigations

Coming soon: dead website!

Only - at best - marginally more meaningful than the Kenyan birth certificate.

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46965391)

You can always go back to the original link and actually read it [heritage.org] .
And yes: if we're stupid enough to retain the 16th Amendment, then using the tax code to coerce people to do ANYTHING, e.g. buy health insurance, is an example of Progressive pencil-neck-speak.
A more CONSERVATIVE argument would be that making one single, honking-big State out of 57 has been a bad episode in our experiment in representative democracy. Woodrow Wilson laid the groundwork for Bush and Obama. If you think either tyrannical, then maybe you should consider that:
(a) freezing the House's size [thirty-thousand.org] so that it becomes less Representative over time,
(b) diminishing the 57 states as political objects (17th Amendment),
(c) giving the über-State eminent domain over your wallet (16th Amendment),
(d) letting the über-State debase the currency to bribe the people with their own money (Federal Reserve Act),
has shown itself to be a recipe for bollocks, and it's time to un-frack it.
Unless you're strangely comfortable with our neo-aristocracy. Maybe it's working for you.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46965755)

You can always go back to the original link and actually read it.

You should really try this reading thing, you might learn something. For example, by reading it you can find that they actually did want a mandate:

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid âoewith a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.â

They even admit that they called for it, and then tried to justify it as "not new":

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s

And those are the words from the heritage foundation site that you just linked to. It's too bad you couldn't bother yourself with reading that page. Where is your JE where you linked to it before? You could have spared me this typing by going back and reading that (notice that I said read, and not reread, as you likely didn't read it the first time).

So are you bringing up your "57 state" conspiracy now because you actually read the heritage foundation page this time and realized that indeed they wanted a mandate all along? I'm not sure how you'll be able to bring about impeachment based on that one, but it is pretty much just as valid as any of your other favorite conspiracy theories.

(a) freezing the House's size so that it becomes less Representative over time,

So how much then do you want to grow government?

(c) giving the über-State eminent domain over your wallet (16th Amendment),

If I were to take a wild guess at your income not being in the top 1%, you do have a good argument against the tax code as it does not favor you. Unfortunately you seem to be rather fond of a lot of the corporate hand-outs that are made possible by the tax code.

(d) letting the über-State debase the currency to bribe the people with their own money (Federal Reserve Act),

Are you trying to go Ron Paul on us here? What is it that you think is accomplished by changing that?

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46965859)

Unfortunately you seem to be rather fond of a lot of the corporate hand-outs that are made possible by the tax code.

I'll tell yo what I'm really fond of: hack a bunch of brussel sprouts in half, roast until crisp in olive oil, let cool, add in bleu cheese and raisins. Mow down. Which has about as much relevance to my point as the corporate tax rate. There is nothing wrong with the tax code that can't be mended with pliers and a blow torch.

Are you trying to go Ron Paul on us here? What is it that you think is accomplished by changing that?

I don't effing know. Maybe if there wasn't money appearing from nowhere, propping up unsustainable entitlements, we'd have enough pressure on our neo-aristocracy to behave maturely? I understand that bureaucracy is all about not getting 'er done, but if we're actually sick of the game, we've got to get past H8ing the playuhs.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46965897)

Maybe if there wasn't money appearing from nowhere, propping up unsustainable entitlements

Why do you hate the veterans so much? The largest entitlements - as demonstrated in an article discussed here not so long ago - go to large corporations and wealthy investors. We know you like those ones. The next largest ones go to benefits relating to military service - why do you want to cut those? I thought you supported the military?

If you ended federal welfare for low income earners and the unemployed today, and killed medicaid at the same time, the difference on the federal budget would be a rounding error. More of your income is "redistrubuted" up than down.

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46966753)

The largest entitlements - as demonstrated in an article discussed here not so long ago - go to large corporations and wealthy investors.

No: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid.

If you ended federal welfare for low income earners and the unemployed today, and killed medicaid at the same time, the difference on the federal budget would be a rounding error.

You could, with equal validity, quote Dr. Seuss.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46967591)

Perhaps you missed the relevant discussion? [slashdot.org] If you read the cited source you'll see how off your assumptions are.

Re:I doubt it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46969683)

You'll see that I pointed out our new "borrow it forward" tradition, on that link. There are any number of others supporting the point that entitlements are unsustainable [wsj.com] .
As I've grown to understand the evil of Progressivism, one party has been handing out candy, and the other has been refusing to tax adequately to pay for it. So there is H8 to spread around, and all the demonization of this party or that is a distraction.

Re:I doubt it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46970297)

You'll see that I pointed out our new "borrow it forward" tradition, on that link. There are any number of others supporting the point that entitlements are unsustainable.

OK, so we have determined here that you want to cut all the "entitlements", including payments to veterans, then. So why do you hate the veterans? Will you do this to all veterans, all the way back - including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc? Or only to veterans of post-Vietnam conflicts?

As I've grown to understand the evil of Progressivism, one party has been handing out candy,

If we don't "hand out candy" to encourage people to join the military, then how will you get people to come in and fight your wars? If you tell them that once they leave the military you don't give a damn what happens to them, you likely won't find positive change in recruitment or retention.

all the demonization of this party or that is a distraction.

Except, of course, for demonizing the party that starts with a D. That is the new official national pastime, is it not? Hence it could never count as a distraction since it is officially sanctioned.

Federalism (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46971271)

It seems that you H8 the concept, but the issue is that FDR's Second Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] , up to and including ObamaCare, have been a running violation of the 9th & 10th Amendments.
As a veteran, and Constitutional supporter, I have to admit willingness to "vote against my own interests", to the same extent that, had I come home in a body bag, my life should have been forfeit.

Except, of course, for demonizing the party that starts with a D.

Yeah. Really. [theblaze.com]
Putz.

Re:Federalism (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46972187)

the issue is that FDR's Second Bill of Rights

That argument is actually an insult to a strawman. The "Second Bill of Rights" is completely and utterly irrelevant as (amongst other reasons) it never made it further than a radio address. Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.

ObamaCare

Which you demonstrated clearly was a product of the Heritage Foundation that you happily love with all your heart. You would have said the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 was the Greatest Bill Ever had it been signed instead by someone with an (R) after their name (for that matter, when Romney signed a similar bill as governor you loved it).

As a veteran, and Constitutional supporter, I have to admit willingness to "vote against my own interests"

This is not just a case of voting against your own interests. This is you asking the government to break the promises that were made to members of the military. Of course we know that you often endorse treating working people like garbage, so I guess that shouldn't be a surprise that you would openly hate military veterans as well; the surprise is just that you would be willing to dare to take such a stance when your party orders you to love the veterans at all costs.

Except, of course, for demonizing the party that starts with a D.

Yeah. Really.

How was that link relevant? It wasn't. If anything it supported my argument more than yours as it was another conservative circle-jerk based on another of your favorite conspiracy theories. You then naturally tried - and failed - again to extend it to the entire democratic party, 24x7x365.

Re:Federalism (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46974589)

Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.

Oh, I don't know: it only summarizes the entire Progressive Project, culminating in ObamaCare. Then again, the truth of a political statement can be gauged by the vehemence of your denial, so I think we've struck nerve here.

This is you asking the government to break the promises that were made to members of the military.

Did I tell you that my dad is a retired vet? The already broken promises to vets (or have you paid attention to the calls for Shinseki's [cbsnews.com] head on a charger) are such that we can dispose of your pious calls for taking care of veterans with a mere "Heh". <troll>Heck, it's almost as though Obama and Snowden are peas of a pod, destroying America on different fronts</troll>

Re:Federalism (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46976183)

Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.

Oh, I don't know: it only summarizes the entire Progressive Project

If only such a "Project" actually was alive and well. While the Second Bill of Rights was a nice description of liberal ideals of the time, it is of no real relevance today as there are no liberals in federal government today, excepting perhaps Bernie Sanders (who is aware of how conservative in action of the democratic party has become [by intent or complacency] and calls himself an independent instead).

culminating in ObamaCare

So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group, based on the celebrated actions of a conservative governor, are somehow the pinnacle of the progressive movement? You're not making a strong argument for the democrats somehow successfully hindering the conservative movement when you describe the conservative accomplishments as somehow being pinnacles of the "progressive" movement.

the vehemence of your denial

The denial is in your imagination. You are pretending that a nonexistent connection is the shared driving force behind all that enrages you.

The already broken promises to vets (or have you paid attention to the calls for Shinseki's head on a charger) are such that we can dispose of your pious calls for taking care of veterans with a mere "Heh".

Even people who work for the VA will admit that care is not 100% consistent throughout the system. No HMO can make that claim, either. However it appears that your idea to solve that problem is to drive the percent receiving quality care to zero. There are plenty of people who are currently receiving quality care who would be bothered by that; especially as they were promised in their service contract that they would receive it.

Re:Federalism (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46977559)

So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group

As long as you're making stuff up, you should say that it was spoken via Ronald Reagan into a magic Telefunken U47 that etched his words via an Autonifty transcriber onto gold plates, which were buried in a field in Massachusetts by voodoo gnomes, to be dug up later and transcribed by Willard Mitt, wearing mystic Ray-Bans, into RomneyCare.
I'm just finding your crap so lacking in creativity these days.

Re:Federalism (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46977839)

So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group

As long as you're making stuff up

The only one making stuff up on this matter is you. My descriptions come from actual text from your own writings.

Re:Federalism (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46985519)

Oh, yeah? I was using your alphabet the whole time! So there!

Re:Federalism (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46985693)

Oh, yeah? I was using your alphabet the whole time! So there!

Were you using them in some sort of alternate language that looks like English but has opposing meanings to those agreed upon by those of us who speak English? Because English speakers will recognize that indeed the text you linked to was the Heritage Foundation admitting to wanting not only a mandate, but a mandate that is quite nearly identical to what is in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. Furthermore they will recognize that every "alternative" plan you have linked to to date that has done anything beyond simply repealing the Bailout is indeed nothing but a reinstatement of the same.

So if you were indeed using some non-English language here to communicate, I apologize for incorrectly viewing it as English. On the other hand, if you were actually using (or, at least, trying to use) English, then it is abundantly clear that your argument not only is invalid, but was in no small part invalidated by the sources you linked to.

Re:Federalism (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46985797)

You're the sound of one hand with the clap. As usual. Any article can be cherry-picked, as you adroitly demonstrate. Bravo. Now, analyze the article in its fullness. But intellectual honesty's not your strong suit, so I expect nothing.

Re:Your distractions are not amusing (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46931731)

...making up silly nicknames...

"President Lawnchair", and it's a horrible misnomer. d_r is very much pro Obama, he voted for him, and that's all it takes, and he still won't believe the man lied during the campaign, very much pro Obama and very much a democrat.. And Mr. Smith is still very much a partisan republican, of the more radical tea party type that would rather see the concentration of power moved to Wall Street, where it already is, actually. DC is merely a funnel.

OK I will bite. (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46918361)

What's supposed to be so scary about Hussein anyway?

It's, roughly speaking, the Muslim equivalent of Peter. Peter is historically a Christian name but no one thinks you have to be Christian to be named Peter. It's become a cultural name. You could be a Dutch Atheist or a Russian Muslim or vice versa and still be named Peter (or maybe Piotr.) And similarly Hussein (or Husayn) has become a cultural name more or less common from West Africa to Malaysia, you could be a Kenyan Muslim or a Lebanese Christian or vice versa and still be named Hussein.

The first person that comes to mind when I hear the name was a Palestinian Christian engineer. Real nice guy.

I do not see what's supposed to be scary here.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46918717)

The first person that comes to mind when I hear the name was a Palestinian Christian engineer.

The Hussein that the conspiracy theorists want you to think of first is Saddam. Yes, it is a very common name in that part of the world but the people who are desperate to find a way to throw out Obama any way possible are not concerned about that. Furthermore, the name is connected in American minds to that part of the world and to Islam; which are both things that are effective at getting people irritated here.

And being as the "saving keystrokes" argument doesn't hold water (4 keystrokes instead of 6? - and we're talking about people who use vastly longer nicknames for him at other times), and there are no other people named Obama that are currently or were previously active in US politics, the TLA is clearly used intentionally for the purpose of getting anti-Obama types excited.

Re:OK I will bite. (0)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46919537)

"The Hussein that the conspiracy theorists want you to think of first is Saddam."

Then they will be disappointed with me huh?

After doing a couple google searches it looks to me likely to backfire even if you are right.

"the TLA is clearly used intentionally for the purpose of getting anti-Obama types excited."

As opposed to getting pro-Obama types excited? Because if that were the goal it would obviously be quite a success from your response.

Re:OK I will bite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919625)

As opposed to getting pro-Obama types excited? Because if that were the goal it would obviously be quite a success from your response.

Nonsense. According to smitty, d_r's a troll.

Trolls are neither pro or anti-Obama. They take on whichever position that pisses of their readers the most to get a rile out of them.

That said, if smitty is right, then d_r is an amazingly successful troll, making smitty (and you) the chump who got trolled hard. ...unless of course you two are trolls too. It's just trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls all around, and I should stop interrupting you guys and go back to eating my popcorn.

Re:OK I will bite. (0)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46919671)

Oh I usually take people seriously to begin with but once we get to the point that I know I am being trolled, I can loosen up a bit and troll back.

Enjoy your popcorn. :)

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46919653)

"the TLA is clearly used intentionally for the purpose of getting anti-Obama types excited."

As opposed to getting pro-Obama types excited? Because if that were the goal it would obviously be quite a success from your response.

If you read the comments that I have actually written - rather than going by smitty's responses that are often written without reading my comments - you will realize what an enormous mistake it is to try to categorize me as a "pro-Obama" type. I have disagreed with more of the laws that Obama has signed (including the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010) than not. Smitty is just desperate to try to shove me in to the "leftist" mold that he believes anyone who is more liberal than (the conservative dream of) Ronald Regan should be in.

I look at the actual data of what Obama has done - ie, signed - as president, and I see him for what he is - the most conservative president our country has ever had. He is demonstrably more conservative than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon. This fact is just too painful for smitty to accept and in his mental meltdown over that matter he tries to paint me as being someone who actively approves of what Obama has done.

The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life. Granted, Obama hasn't been much better but the slightest chance of a career is better than none at all. If there was an actual liberal running in the presidential election who had a chance of at least defeating the republican who wanted me homeless and destitute I would have happily voted for them instead.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46919695)

"I look at the actual data of what Obama has done - ie, signed - as president, and I see him for what he is - the most conservative president our country has ever had. He is demonstrably more conservative than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon."

How are you defining conservative?

"The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life. "

How so?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46920185)

"I look at the actual data of what Obama has done - ie, signed - as president, and I see him for what he is - the most conservative president our country has ever had. He is demonstrably more conservative than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon."

How are you defining conservative?

I am defining conservative as someone who seeks to conserve the fiscal and power structure of this country (ie, conserving as much power and wealth in the hands of those who have the most already). I am defining a conservative as someone who favors corporations over individuals.

"The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life. "

How so?

The science research budget would have been decimated even more so under McCain or Romney than it already has been under Obama and Bush. I would have had no hope for a career in this country even though I have lived here my entire life,

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#46920263)

"I am defining a conservative as someone who favors corporations over individuals."

Sure, by that definition we have had an unbroken string of conservative governments for the last century.

But that definition is rather wildly different from the definition you would find someone that actually identifies as conservative would give.

"The science research budget would have been decimated even more so under McCain or Romney than it already has been under Obama and Bush. "

Not that I disagree that McCain or Romney would have been disasters, do you really think it is not even theoretically possible that your work could be supported privately?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46920839)

But that definition is rather wildly different from the definition you would find someone that actually identifies as conservative would give.

People who call themsevles conservative talk about what Ayn Rand says their ideal conservative universe would accomplish. I am a person rooted in reality, and I define a conservative based on what conservatives actually do as politicians. We have been subjected to conservative economic and social plans in this country for decades (if not longer). I will say that fustakrakich has a good point in that there is nobody of note who is running to significantly alter the course of this ship, everyone just wants to make small incremental changes. The problem is that no liberal is ever allowed to make the changes; we just get changes from politicians of varying stripes of conservative.

"The science research budget would have been decimated even more so under McCain or Romney than it already has been under Obama and Bush. "

Not that I disagree that McCain or Romney would have been disasters, do you really think it is not even theoretically possible that your work could be supported privately?

In that situation, it is nearly impossible to start a career (as any attempt to obtain private funding would be futile against the senior researchers who who be applying for the same private funding) and large cross-disciplinary research projects would never get funded due to the large amounts of capital required to start. If all the federal money is pulled away abruptly - as the GOP candidates have repeatedly attempted to do - there is no room for a junior researcher to grow their career. To make matters worse many senior researchers would end up leaving for private sector jobs if they were unable to obtain private funding, which would leave a huge hole that juniors would fall in to.

Calling it a disaster would be an understatement. It would likely lead to an exodus of scientists out of our country. Not that we have done a great job of attracting talent with our archaic immigration laws, but it would make everything worse.

Re:OK I will bite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46921935)

The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life.

Bullshit. Republicans are all about creating jobs.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46922255)

The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life.

Bullshit. Republicans are all about creating jobs.

How were you able to stop laughing long enough to be able to write that sentence?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46923647)

*cough*Keystone XL*cough*

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46923965)

Wow, brilliant, there. You came up with one example of an action widely supported by conservatives that will create a bunch of 2-3 year jobs and then lay off the bulk of them. How exactly does that counter all the jobs that have been killed in corporate tax handouts and workers' rights stripping that has happened in the past few decades?

Well, actually, it goes well with it. This bill makes a bunch of short-term jobs, and billions of dollars in short-term profits for people who are already rolling in money. It then takes the lowest paid of those on the projects and moves them to unemployment while guaranteeing revenue to the guys at the top for some time to come, since their refineries are already at capacity and they don't have a profit motive to build new ones.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46924289)

You came up with one example of an action widely supported by conservatives that will create a bunch of 2-3 year jobs and then lay off the bulk of them.

Seriously? You fail to grasp that putting in a pipeline and lowering energy costs across the whole economy will have salubrious effect? I mean, I realize you're an ideologue, but I didn't think you completely stupid.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46924581)

I'm sorry that you are so deeply in love with the party kool-aid to notice the massive faults in the claim. In particular, how can you possibly reduce cost of oil when the refineries are already working at maximum capacity and have no plans for expansion? All the pipeline will do is increase the backlog. At very best it might be able to hold prices more stable for a longer period of time but it certainly won't be able to reduce them. And that works only if you assume that the pipeline will be operated in a purely on-demand fashion, hence not resulting in any additional storage costs for the refineries themselves.

Although being as it is another giant corporate handout, I'm really quite surprised that Obama hasn't gotten on board. I guess just once his owners let him pretend to have ideas of his own. If it ever made it to his desk as a bill, though, I would bet money on him signing it.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46924657)

As though we can no longer build refineries. In fact, knowledge that a pipeline is bringing more supply
could
maybe
somehow
connect
capital
to new
refinery
construction
the way
oxygen
doesn't
seem to
connect
with your
brain cells.

Although being as it is another giant corporate handout, I'm really quite surprised that Obama hasn't gotten on board.

I think Overlord Buffet told BHO 'no'.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46925115)

What you are conveniently overlooking is that the refinery owners are actually de-incentivized from building more refineries, especially if the pipeline is built. As much as it might be counter to classic conservative mantras, there is actually a finite supply of oil on this planet. The oil companies are well aware of this, and they know that they can do more to maximize profit by delaying refining. There is no additional profit for them in producing more oil for lower prices. Furthermore the pipeline proposal results in a specific conglomeration of companies owning the pipeline outright, which allows them to prevent others from using it - making it not worthwhile for other companies to build new refineries at the end of the pipeline.

The simple question that you are conveniently not asking is why would they build this for any reason other than to increase their own profits? And the reason is - of course - that they would never do such a thing. Oil companies do not exist for humanitarian purposes, they exist to make money.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46925269)

Dude, there is this magic thing out there called a "market".
See, the way this works is that you don't let the refinery owners behave as a cartel, and let the fact that there is a fat pile of profit to be made for building more refining capacity drive construction.
Heck, you can probably bring up safety standards and help the environment, too.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46925397)

Dude, there is this magic thing out there called a "market".

You call it magic if you like. I call it a bullshit excuse to abuse consumers and employees to maximize profit. The actual record of its actions support my view more than yours.

See, the way this works is that you don't let the refinery owners behave as a cartel,

Can you name a presidential administration who has ever prevented that? Ever? No, I cannot either. And don't try to tell me that we've ever had - or ever will have - a candidate from the GOP that would prevent the oil industry from behaving as a cartel.

and let the fact that there is a fat pile of profit to be made for building more refining capacity drive construction

Why bother building a refinery when you cannot access the crude?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46935607)

You call it magic if you like. I call it a bullshit excuse to abuse consumers and employees to maximize profit.

Which, in a properly functioning market, should kill your business. Especially in the age of social media.

Can you name a presidential administration who has ever prevented that? Ever?

Can you point to the chain of reasoning showing that this is the President's explicit job?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46935853)

You call it magic if you like. I call it a bullshit excuse to abuse consumers and employees to maximize profit.

Which, in a properly functioning market, should kill your business. Especially in the age of social media.

What does social media have to do with it? All the companies in social media are out to make a buck as well. The results of their work beyond profit is not within their concern.

Can you name a presidential administration who has ever prevented that? Ever?

Can you point to the chain of reasoning showing that this is the President's explicit job?

I may have misread you, but earlier you said [slashdot.org] :

the way this works is that you don't let the refinery owners behave as a cartel

Perhaps by "you", you were referring to someone other than the federal government? Being as you are asking the federal government to once again cater to the private businesses, I thought that we were still talking about the federal government (being as it is not in the interest of big oil to stop their own cartel behaviors).

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46937509)

If you cater to private property, the rule of law, and competition, an utterly amazing amount of these seemingly insurmountable problems are substantially mitigated by that thing which you H8, capitalism.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46939115)

Wow, another astonishing job of not actually responding at all to the comment for which you hit "reply".

I'll go ahead and rephrase the question anyways, even though I don't expect you to answer.

Being as the Keystone XL that you are trying to claim as the cure for everything that ills us will be private property - property of the oil companies in particular - who is it that you want to exert power over them to force them to allow others to use it to move oil from Canada to the gulf? And as a bonus question, how is that not counter to your free market ideals?

After all, as I (and many others at other places) have already pointed out, the oil companies make the most money by restricting flow through that pipeline. They know - in spite of what some theologists may claim - that there is indeed a finite supply of oil on this planet and in the Canadian tar sands. The best way for the oil companies to maximize profit from the oil sands is to ensure that it is used up at the most profitable rate - and a rate that drives down prices would not be that rate.

You also are conveniently overlooking the fact that the current proposal for the pipeline includes seizure of private property to run the pipeline. Why are the interests of land owners not important here?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46944329)

Really? Exactly what property is up for seizure? I say: none. Your girl is doing Buffet's bidding and refusing to sign.
A better troll would be to ask why Congress doesn't just attach permission as an amendment to some must-sign legislation. The answer is that Boehner is a loser. Hope we have a different speaker in the next Congress.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46945967)

Really? Exactly what property is up for seizure?

Any land owner whose property stands in the way of your keystone XL pipeline, that is who is up for seeing their property up for seizure. If this goes through there will be no choice for those property owners, because of course profit is far more important than freedom, right?

I say: none.

Naturally by not reading any "news" that doesn't come pre-bundled in your worldview you will come to that conclusion. You probably got that from the same person who convinced you that Obama is a closet Commie Jihadist.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46946977)

You haven't explained how the Project Which Has Not Yet Been Approved is offering a threat to any specific property. If I were inclined to doubt your veracity, I might think you're engaged in Making Stuff Up.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46981987)

You haven't explained how the Project Which Has Not Yet Been Approved is offering a threat to any specific property.

Once again you conveniently evade the issue [washingtonpost.com] ... and you claim to defend private property, that's funny.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46985067)

OK, there was some news last August. I support the full legal process, and despise the Kelo decision. Do you also require push-ups?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46985489)

Kelo had noting to do with Keystone. What about the decision in the link?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46985553)

What Kelo has to do with the decision (which I wholeheartedly support) was to intensify concern over corrupt government officials steamrollering private property in bogus takings. Glad that didn't happen in Texas.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46985869)

So taking property for private business is okay?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 3 months ago | (#46929367)

but I didn't think you completely stupid.

There was your mistake in this exchange. d_r is indeed completely stupid.

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46931605)

Stupid is as stupid does

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 3 months ago | (#46931793)

Then we both agree that d_r is stupid. How about a beer?

Re:OK I will bite. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46933529)

How about a beer?

I'll drink to that, mah brutha!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>